2

DLMSO November 20, 2001

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD

SUBJECT: Defense Logistics Management Standards (DLMS) Supply 

Process Review Committee (PRC) Meeting 01-3, 

October 16-18, 2001

Purpose: The Defense Logistics Management Standards Office 

(DLMSO) hosted the subject meeting at the Headquarters Complex, Ft. 

Belvoir, VA. Specific discussion topics are noted below. A list of 

attendees is shown at Enclosure 1. 

 

Brief Summary of Discussion: Ms. Ellen Hilert and Ms. Mary 

Jane Johnson, Supply PRC (SPRC) Co-Chairs, and Ms. Vermella Savage, 

MILSTRIP Administrator, facilitated discussion:

Review of Meeting Topics:

 

a. DLSS/DLMS Change Evaluation, Status Review, and Issue 

Resolution. The following specific changes were discussed:

1) Revised Request for Implementation Dated (RFID) 

AMCL 9, Processing Materiel Receipts Not Due for GSA Managed Items. 

BACKGROUND: AMCL 9 was developed to address unauthorized returns of 

GSA managed items. MILSTRAP procedures require that the receiving 

activity report receipt of discrepant unauthorized returns to the 

cognizant ICP while the discrepancy is being processed. However under 

GSA policy, unless a return was authorized through the Materiel 

Returns Program, GSA will not accept ownership for items sold to DoD. 

Hence reporting receipt of discrepant unauthorized returns to GSA, as 

the cognizant item manager, is not an acceptable procedure. GSA will 

simply reject the receipt IAW their policy. At the time AMCL 9 was 

written, the Services owned their own depots, and the change required 

that the Services provide their depots a means to report unauthorized 

returns of GSA managed items to a Service owner. Subsequent to the 

approval of the change, the depots were transferred to DLA. At that 

point, the Services were required to provide DLA with a Service 

organization to which the receipt for the unauthorized return of GSA 

assets should be reported. DISCUSSION: Mr. Bob Vitko, DLA SPRC 

representative, addressed mechanisms that have evolved which could 

prove effective at dealing with the problem of unauthorized returns. 

Specifically, under Supply Discrepancy Reporting (SDR) procedures, 

U.S. Government activities returning materiel without authorization 

may be held responsible for costs incurred by the receiving activity 

when the discrepancy is reported and validated IAW SDR procedures. 

Recoupment action by the ICP against the initiator may include all 

costs for reimbursable actions performed by the receiving activity 

such as repackaging, marking, and/or disposal. Mr. Vitko suggested 

that if GSA invoked this punitive action, it could be a deterrent to 

future unauthorized return of GSA materiel. However upon further
3

consideration of this punitive procedure, it appears to the MILSTRAP 

administrator that this approach is more appropriately used by the 

Services than by GSA. For GSA to invoke these procedures, they would 

have to accept ownership for the unauthorized return of items, and act 

as an item manager to provide disposition instructions to the DoD 

receiving activity, and to direct that the DoD returning activity be 

billed for costs incurred related to the materiel. This approach 

conflicts with GSA's 1985 policy that responsibility for materiel 

passes to DoD upon shipment to DoD activities, and that GSA does not 

provide inventory management services to DoD activities for such 

materiel. (The 1985 GSA policy is available as a link to the SPRC 01-

3 agenda.) ACTION: DLMSO agreed to contact GSA to advise them of the 

suggestion to ascertain if GSA is willing to deviate from their 1985 

policy and act as an item manager for DoD, when unauthorized returns 

are involved, so that GSA can invoke the SDR recoupment process. 

NOTE: Subsequent to the meeting Mr. Gary Hood, GSA, advised that use 

of the SDR process would require that GSA engage in a procedure that, 

as a matter of policy, they don’t do. Mr. Hood indicated that GSA's 

1985 policy is still in effect. In light of this information, the 

Services should continue to pursue implementation of AMCL 9 and notify 

DLMSO of their implementation date. Use of the SDR recoupment 

process discussed above would appear to provide a deterrent to 

unauthorized returns, however the Services should pursue this process 

rather than GSA.

(2) Approved DLMS Change (ADC) 9A, Validation of F/AD 

I Activities; ADC 9B, Automatic Downgrading Based upon Validation of 

F/AD; and Implementation Issues. BACKGROUND: The original change 

established an automated process to validate F/AD I requisitions using 

a table of authorized activity DoDAACs maintained at DAASC. Beginning 

in September 1998, requisitions reflecting unauthorized use of 

associated priority designators (PDs) have been output to a report for 

Component review. In September 2000, ADC 9B activated automatic 

downgrading to include all improper PD 04 and 11 requisitions and 

Security Assistance (SA) PD 01s. DISCUSSION: The Committee reviewed 

September report data reflecting increases for PD01 requisitions for 

Air Force and other categories. Report revisions to incorporate logic 

for eliminating “redundant” passing and referral orders without the 

one-month constraint and inclusion of AT_, AM_, and APR transactions 

appearing as originals (i.e. the AO_ transaction is not recorded in 

the DAAS data base) have been implemented. The Navy reported a 

program correction at Puget Sound assuring appropriate F/AD usage on 

requisitions was implemented October 1. The Joint Staff (J-4) 

reported termination of development efforts on a related initiative 

referred to as the F/AD On-Line Retrieval and Tracking System (FORTS). 

This project was considered a possible long-term facilitator for 

expansion of DAAS validation beyond F/AD I. ACTION: MILSTRIP 

interim change to post modified report formats and refined selection 

criteria will be released shortly. Components will continue efforts 

to identify instances of high volume abuse and seek corrective action. 

DAASC will research accessibility issues concerning the report to 

determine feasibility of restrictions.
4

(3) Joint AMCLs 11 (MILSTRAP) & 15 (MILSTRIP), 

Revised Materiel Receipt Acknowledgement (MRA) Procedures. 

BACKGROUND: The AMCL 11/15 procedures were initially developed to 

resolve several DoD system deficiencies identified in various DoD IG 

and GAO reports. In 1996, ADUSD(L)MDM, recognizing the benefits 

AMCL 11/15 could have for metrics analysis (presently addressed 

under the DoD Customer Wait Time initiative), directed and funded 

implementation of AMCLs 11 and 15. Components accepted the funding 

and implemented on a staggered basis from 1997 into early 1999, 

subsequently reporting full implementation. Numerous significant 

implementation issues have since been identified but have not been

fully resolved. At this meeting, the Supply PRC Co-chairs indicated 

they would look into elevating the MRA implementation issues to 

ADUSD SCI for resolution, rather than continue to address them at 

SPRC meetings. (Refer to the minutes of SPRC meeting 01-1 and 01-2 

for detailed documentation of implementation issues (b) through (h) 

below.)

 (a) MRA Management Information Report. The 

committee reviewed excerpts from a draft MRA management information 

report, which DAASC developed at the request of the SPRC. After the 

representatives approve the report it will be available on-line 

through DAASC. Discussion resulted in the several initial 

recommendations to include: (1) provide explanations (similar 

to information provided in separate handout prepared by Mary 

Maurer/DAASC) in the report for the various columns, to 

facilitate report review; (2) possibly provide capability for 

the report to be accessed on-line by more than one sequence, 

such as by requisitioner sequence and by ship-to DoDAAC 

sequence; (3) eventually provide drill-down capability to the 

individual transaction level and (4) DVD information appeared 

to be incorrect and DAASC is to review/correct as needed.

 

 (b) Army implementation of AMCL 15 (MILSTRIP). 

Review of DAASC records in May 2001 revealed a complete absence of DI 

Code ASH transactions for Army, implying that Army may not have 

implemented the AMCL 15 procedures. ACTION: Army will investigate 

and provide status of corrective action.

 (c) MRA Submission Rate Concerns. 

1 Navy Overall MRA Submission Rates. 

Despite having accepted funding from OSD to implement AMCLs 11/15 in 

1996/1997, and having reported the change as implemented in their 

legacy systems, Navy's overall MRA submission rate remains very low, 

indicating the change was never fully implemented. Mr. Michael Morra, 

Navy SPRC representative, stated that because Navy legacy systems are 

being replaced by SAP, Navy will not apply resources to change the 

legacy systems to fully implement AMCL 11/15. ACTION: In light of 

Navy's position, DLMSO advised that the Navy Supply PRC representative 

must assure that all Navy system modernization efforts/offices are 

apprised of the AMCL 11/15 requirements, and their importance to DoD. 
5

Further, DLMSO tasked Navy to document when and how Navy will 

implement the AMCL 11/15 MRA procedures. If implementation is to be 

accomplished by the 4 or 5 Navy ERPs, Navy must, as a MINIMUM: a) 

document which ERPS will implement the procedures; b) document when 

each ERP will implement the procedures; c) identify what systems each 

ERP is replacing; and d) assure that all recipients of shipments of 

DoD wholesale materiel will be capable of submitting MRAs under the 

ERPs. Request Navy document this information to DLMSO within 45 days

from the date of these minutes.

2 Medical and Clothing & Textile 

Systems. The DLA statistics reviewed at SPRC meeting 01-1 indicated 

that the MRA process was not effectively implemented by Service 

Medical systems and, particularly for Navy and Marine Corps, by the 

Clothing & Textile systems. ACTION: Request Service and DLA PRC 

representatives collaborate and exchange information as needed to 

advance the investigation of implementation of MRA procedures in 

Medical and Clothing & Textile systems. Services should continue to

investigate, and provide their results and a plan of corrective 

action at SPRC meeting 02-1. 

(d) DI Code D6S Transactions: BACKGROUND: 

To accommodate staggered implementation from 1997-1999, DAASC 

provided a temporary conversion of DI Code D6S to DI Code DRA. This 

interim procedure should no longer be in effect as it would not be 

required with full implementation of the MRA procedures. However 

DAASC query revealed continued generation of D6S transactions: 

Service # D6S transactions by month in 2001

APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT

Navy 12,101 12,651 12,442 10,763 11,853 9,182 10,542

Air 

Force

 2,503 2,248 2,013 2,312 

2,590

 2,538 2,829

Army 633 1,122 11,498 794 996 29 4

Marine 

Corps

 30 100 45 60 45 17 69

DISCUSSION: Army reflected dramatic drop in the number of D6S 

transactions generated in September. Subsequent to the meeting, the 

October figures were received reflecting only 4 D6S transactions 

generated by Army. Marine Corps initiates corrective action with 

involved activities, for their very limited generation of D6S 

transactions. Air Force D6S generation appears limited to their 

legacy medical system (MEDLOG), which will continue to generate DI 

Code D6S until replaced by the DMLSS. DMLSS fielding began in April 

2001 and will continue on a staggered basis for the next 3-4 years. 

Navy D6S numbers decreased by approximately 20% in September, which 

Navy attributes to a fix to their Construction Battalions system. 

Navy suspects their Shipyard System is generating the remaining D6S 

transactions. They anticipate a fix to that system by January 29, 

2002. DLMSO NOTE: It has been suggested to DLMSO that once the 

major offenders have been notified and system corrections made, 

DAASC begin rejecting DI Code D6S transactions rather than convert 
6

to DI Code DRA. Request Components and DAASC consider this 

alternative and how/when it could best be implemented. 

(e) Quantity Problems. ARMY: Army 

programmed their system to cite the quantity received rather than 

the missing quantity, when less than the shipped quantity is 

received. This approach conflicts with approved procedures. At 

SPRC meeting 01-2, Army indicated a system change to correct the 

problem has been written, however due to a moratorium on changes to 

the Standard Army Retail Supply System (SARSS), the requirement must 

be elevated within Army. At SPRC 01-2, Army reported an internal 

meeting was scheduled for June 18, 2001 to address this and other 

issues, and possibly obtain funding to fix the quantity problem. 

The Army SPRC representative has since changed and Mr. Tom Evans, 

the new Army SPRC representative, agreed to investigate whether the 

Army meeting took place, and the outcome. AIR FORCE: Air Force 

continues to pursue a correction to the problem of reporting MRAs 

showing a discrepancy indicator code F, indicating a quantity 

missing, for materiel that has in fact not yet been shipped. 

ACTION: Army and Air Force to provide status update of their 

corrective action as soon as possible, but no later than SPRC 

meeting 02-1. 

(f) Security Assistance (SA) Concerns. DLMSO 

issued a memorandum, April 11, 2001, formally tasking the Services to 

respond to DSADC questions/concerns. To date only Navy has formally 

responded. ACTION: DLMSO reiterated the request for Army, Air Force, 

and Marine Corps to provide formal responses to the April 11, 2001 

memorandum as soon as possible, but no later than SPRC 02-1.

(g) Partial and Split Shipments. BACKGROUND: 

At SPRC meeting 01-1, the PRC was tasked to provide by May 15, 2001, 

detailed documentation on how their retail receipt and MRA 

processes/systems react to the partial and split shipment coding in 

the TCN field; documentation on the full impact of partial and split 

coding on SDR generation; and identification of what, if any, entry 

is currently being made in rp 7 of the DI Code DRA/DRB, to include 

the associated programming logic and procedural guidance. Requested 

documentation has not yet been received from Army, Air Force, or 

Marine Corps. DISCUSSION: See SPRC 01-1 and 01-2 for detailed 

explanation of the problem. ACTION: In light of the widespread use 

of partial shipments by DSS, all Components should be looking at the 

impact of partial shipments on their systems and procedures. 

Further, request that within 45 days of the date of these minutes, 

Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps provide detailed documentation on 

their procedures for processing partial and split shipment coding 

contained in the TCN field in their retail receipt, MRA, and SDR

processing; and the impact if procedures/systems do not consider 

this data. DLMSO will identify to Navy those areas for which 

additional clarification is required for the information Navy 

previously provided. Request DLA continue efforts to verify the 

magnitude of the depot's use of partial shipments, and ascertain the 

extent to which transportation splits shipments.
7

(h) Supply Discrepancy Reports (SDRs) Based 

upon Army “Pseudo” Receipts (Material Receipt Acknowledgement (MRA) 

with Discrepancy Code F). BACKGROUND: Refer to 01-1 minutes for 

details. ACTION: No resolution. This discussion will be resumed at 

the SPRC 02-1 meeting.

(4) RFID Joint AMCLs 12 (MILSTRAP) and 43 

(MILSTRIP), Maintaining Accountability During Maintenance Actions. 

BACKGROUND: The RFID for Joint AMCLs 12 and 43 was released March 

29, 2001. Air Force and Marine Corps response to the RFID 

indicated the change was implemented, while Army indicated the 

MILSTRAP portion was implemented. Navy and DLA had not responded 

DISCUSSION: Joint AMCLs 12 and 43 were developed to provide more 

accurate DoD accountability for items undergoing maintenance, in 

response to DoDIG and GAO audit reports identifying weaknesses in 

this area. In light of the importance of this change, the GAO and 

DoDIG interest, and the positive implementation response previously 

provided by Army, Air Force and Marine Corps, DLMSO requested that 

DLA and Navy provide their response to the RFID in anticipation that 

the procedures can be implemented and published in the near term. 

ACTION: Request that within 45 days from the date of these minutes: 

(1) DLA and Navy provide their AMCL 12/43 implementation dates; and 

(2) Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps verify or update the 

implementation dates previously provided, since implementation would 

likely require some interface with the DLA depot system.

(5) Revised RFID ADC 14, New Supply Condition Code 

(SCC) V, Unserviceable (Waste, Military Munitions). BACKGROUND: 

ADC 14 was issued July 27, 2000, with a December 2004 joint 

implementation date. This date was selected to accommodate the 

outside Component implementation date, which was provided by Army. 

In May 2001, Army advised DLMSO that they could implement ADC 14 

immediately, and asked if joint implementation earlier than 2004 was 

possible. DLMSO reissued the RFID on June 21, 2001. This change is 

needed in DoD to support the Environmental Protection Agency 

Military Munitions Rule, which was effective August 12, 1997. 

DISCUSSION: Responses to the RFID were due Aug 6, 2001, and have 

not been received. Navy provided an implementation date of June 

2002. ACTION: Components to respond to the RFID.

(6) RFID 41, DAAS Reject of Requisitions With 

Invalid Ship-to and Mail-to Address in MAPAD. BACKGROUND: This 

change originally scheduled for implementation in 1994, authorizes 

the DAAS to reject SA transactions that do not have a valid ship-to 

address. DISCUSSION: The DSCA (ILCO) representatives identified an 

adverse impact and potential for significant delay for some SA 

customers should they be required to submit a new requisition (with 

new document number) based upon a DP status rejection. An agreement 

was reached to clarify the approved change so that the DP status 

would only apply to DAAS rejects and would permit resubmission of 

the original requisition. ICPs/IMMs rejecting requisitions for this 
8

condition would use the CX status and would require a new 

requisition. ACTION: DLMSO will issue the approved change. 

(7) Draft PDC 65, Enhanced Edits for the Required 

Delivery Date (RDD) Field in Requisitions. BACKGROUND: Per SPRC 

00-3 agreement, and in response to OIG Report D-2000-113, Required 

Delivery Dates in Requisitions for Secondary Items of Supply 

Inventory, DLMSO prepared a draft change proposal to address 

specific RDD usage problems that could be resolved with enhanced 

DAASC validation. DISCUSSION: The latest version of the draft 

proposal was reviewed and a few adjustments were suggested. ACTION: 

Discussion of demand sequence for compliance with MILSTRIP (carry 

over from 01-2 action items) will be deferred for 02-1 meeting. 

DLMSO will release the proposal for staffing.

(8) Proposed DLMS Change 68, Deletion of Obsolete 

Type of Media Codes. BACKGROUND: DLMSO issued PDC 68 to update the 

MILSTRAP Type of Media codes to eliminate those codes that are no 

longer applicable due to advancements in technology. DISCUSSION: 

Army, Marine Corps, DTRA and DLA concurred. Responses were needed 

from Navy and Air Force. Mr. Dave Brown, DAASC, made suggestions 

for rewording the remaining code definition to make it more generic. 

ACTION: DLMSO will reword the code definition based on discussions 

at the meeting and issue the RFID.

(9) Draft Proposal for Customer Identification on 

Automated Exception Requisitions. BACKGROUND: This change requires 

internal system generation of customer identification within 

automated exception requisitions containing clear text ship-to 

addresses as a safeguard against fraud. DISCUSSION: The DLA and 

DAASC provided clarification of current practices instituted to 

accommodate specific customers. It was also suggested that 

consideration be given to employing public key encryption (PKI) to 

satisfy this requirement. ACTION: DLMSO will pursue possible 

alternatives and completion of the proposal for formal staffing. 

b. Component Unique DLMS Requirements. BACKGROUND: Data 

is transmitted within the DLSS and DLSS-like transactions, for which 

business rules, validation criteria, and meta data have not been 

vetted through the DLMS PRCs and are therefore undocumented in the 

DoD 4000.25 series manuals. This includes intra-Component 

transactions (some of which have evolved for inter-Component use); 

multi-or dual-use record positions in existing DLSS transactions; 

and data transmitted within DLSS "Blank" record positions. 

DISCUSSION: If above Component data requirements are not clearly 

defined for the DLMS it could negatively impact Enterprise Resource 

Planning (ERP) and other modernization programs, as well as existing 

legacy systems. Those overseeing modernization efforts relying on 

DAAS DLSS-DLMS conversion processing must understand that undefined 

data is not retained during the conversion. Mr. Dale Yeakel, DLMSO 

support team, briefed the Committee on alternative approaches for 

resolution. ACTION: DLMS PRC will have lead action on identifying 

and properly documenting requirements. Components must act quickly 
9

to submit validated requirements based upon LMI study findings. 

LMI will complete the AF study and begin review of DLA requirements. 

Subsequent to the meeting it was verified that the Electronic 

Commerce Resource Center (ECRC) personnel would prepare 

implementation conventions to address USAMMA interface with DLA, 

currently processed as C series transactions, under a DLMSO tasking.

c. Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) Integrated Product 

Team (IPT)-Expanded Update. BACKGROUND: In March 2001, the DRID 

48/Commercial Standards EDI IPT was expanded to exploit the full 

potential of the community services concept as it relates to 

enterprise resource planning (ERP)/modernization initiatives (refer 

to: www.dla.mil/j-6/log-edi/ERP_IPT/default.htm). DISCUSSION: The 

most significant action since the last meeting was completion of a 

new appendix to the Corporate Plan addressing enterprise-wide 

services and action items. The approved draft has been submitted to 

DUSDL(M&R) for signature. ACTION: Subsequent to the meeting the 

anticipated November EDI IPT-Expanded meeting to address 

undocumented Component-unique requirements was cancelled.

d. Joint Logistics Warfighting Initiative (JLWI). 

DISCUSSION: Mr. Matt Bush, OSD J-4 support team (Anteon), provided 

an overview briefing and video on the JLWI. (The briefing is 

available via hyperlink from the meeting agenda.) Elements of 

particular interest were the customer wait time (CWT) metrics and the 

web requisitioning initiative. The web requisitioning effort may 

offer insights into establishing interfaces with Component legacy 

systems for financial obligation and demand history, a problem 

plaguing DoD EMALL. ACTION: DLMSO will gather more information and 

share with interested parties. 

e. Project Code Ranking. BACKGROUND: The Committee was 

previously briefed that the Joint Staff J-4 was investigating the 

need for rank ordering OSD/CJCS project codes during requisition 

processing. Several alternative approaches were being considered. 

DISCUSSION: The Joint Staff J-4 reported that their office would no 

longer pursue a procedural change to permit rank ordering of 

OSD/CJCS project codes. Current procedures are considered adequate 

and no further action is warranted.

f. Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service (DRMS) 

Moving Forward. Mr. George Gray, DRMS, provided an overview of DRMS 

operations and future vision. The purpose of the briefing was to 

establish a dialogue and points of contact to assist in DRMS 

transition to moving information vice material. (The briefing 

available via hyperlink to meeting agenda.)

g. DLMS Supplement (DS) Review. 

 (1) The Committee continued review of the DS to the 

945R Federal Implementation Convention (IC), Materiel Release 

Advice, where left off at the lat meeting. The following SPRC 01-2 
10

and 01-3 comments/corrections apply. ACTION: DLMSO will develop a 

change proposal to document the specific revisions to the DS/IC. 

• Applicability was expanded to include responses to lateral 

redistribution orders (LRO) under Total Asset Visibility (TAV). 

Coding compatible with the 940 must be added to identify 

reparable/ consumable items and applicable activities.

• An additional from activity must be added to identify DAASC as 

the sender where DLSS source transaction for the DLMS 945 does 

not identify the initiator.

• Additional activities must be added to identify the “retail” 

site responding to/satisfying a LRO and to identify the 

activity overseeing the fulfillment of the LRO under Army 

single stock fund implementation.

• DLMSO will investigate apparent loss of reference to warranty 

information in the G62 segment.

• The use of mutually defined stock number qualifier was further 

clarified to include local control numbers and management 

control numbers issued by DLIS during the cataloguing process. 

Although separate qualifiers may be appropriate, it was not 

identified as essential since the parties passing the data will 

understand the contents.

(2) 830R, Special Program Requirements (SPR). The 

committee discussed a change to add the functionality of the 

MILSTRAP Document Identifier Codes DYB and DYM to identify that 

exception date is being provided with an SPR. ACTION: DLMSO will 

issue a PDC for this change.

(3) 947I, Inventory Adjustment. Dual adjustments 

require entry of both "TO" and "FROM" codes (supply condition, 

ownership, or purpose). DLMSO provided for the two distinct TO and 

FROM codes in the 947I through positioning in the segment (i.e. data 

element has one meaning in first iteration of segment and a 

different meaning in second iteration). However, we have since 

learned that positioning is an inefficient method to identify 

distinct data. Systems, to include the DLMS-DLSS translator, cannot 

always make the distinction between data based on positioning. To 

resolve this issue in the 947I, DLMSO will submit a data maintenance 

(DM) request for 3 new ANSI 1270 qualifiers for 2/LQ01/100 to 

identify the "FROM" codes, for use with dual adjustments (W1916 code 

DU (Dual Adjustment); and W1901/020 codes AC (Supply condition 

code); AD (Purpose code); and AG(Ownership code)). In the interim, 

while the DM processes, DLMSO will add “ZZ” to 2/LQ01/100, with a 

DLMS Supplement (DS) note: “Use only in conjunction with dual 

adjustments (W1916 code DU), to identify the old (“FROM”) supply 

condition code, or purpose code, or ownership code, as applicable". 

ACTION: DLMSO will issue an ADC for this change, and pursue the 
11

necessary ANSI ASC X12 DM, as well as updates to the 947I Federal IC 

and DLMS Supplement. 

 h. DoDAAC Table Update. Mr. Jackie Carter, DLMSO DoDAAC 

Table Administrator, provided a brief update on reengineering 

efforts as discussed at a March DoDAAC meeting. He provided a list 

of data elements under consideration during the redesign. ACTION: 

DLMSO will continue efforts to develop an IC/DS for DoDAAC updates 

although other methods of table maintenance, including web-based 

input, are planned.

i. Next Meeting. The SPRC 02-1 meeting is scheduled for 

January 14-18, 2002. The meeting is scheduled for 5 days to afford 

time to review several DLMS supplements, in addition to other agenda 

topics. ACTION: The Navy should be prepared to provide an overview 

of their modernization program (originally scheduled for previous 

two meetings). 

/s/ /s/

_________________________ _______________________

ELLEN HILERT MARY JANE JOHNSON

Supply PRC Co-Chair Supply PRC Co-Chair

APPROVE: 

JAMES A. JOHNSON ______/s/_____________

Director, DLMSO

Enclosure